MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Mapping the Integration of Sensory Information across Fingers in Human Sensorimotor Cortex

2022· article· en· W4281298437 on OpenAlexafffund
Spencer A. Arbuckle, J. Andrew Pruszynski, Jörn Diedrichsen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuroscience · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersCanada Research ChairsFondation Brain Canada
KeywordsSomatosensory systemSensory systemNeurosciencePsychologyPrimary motor cortexSensory stimulation therapyPopulationCortex (anatomy)NeurophysiologyMotor cortexComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceStimulationMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The integration of somatosensory signals across fingers is essential for dexterous object manipulation. Previous experiments suggest that this integration occurs in neural populations in the primary somatosensory cortex (S1). However, the integration process has not been fully characterized, as previous studies have mainly used 2-finger stimulation paradigms. Here, we addressed this gap by stimulating all 31 single-and multifinger combinations. We measured population-wide activity patterns evoked during finger stimulation in human S1 and primary motor cortex (M1) using 7T fMRI in female and male participants. Using multivariate fMRI analyses, we found clear evidence of unique nonlinear interactions between fingers. In Brodmann area (BA) 3b, interactions predominantly occurred between pairs of neighboring fingers. In BA 2, however, we found equally strong interactions between spatially distant fingers, as well as interactions between finger triplets and quadruplets. We additionally observed strong interactions in the hand area of M1. In both M1 and S1, these nonlinear interactions did not reflect a general suppression of overall activity, suggesting instead that the interactions we observed reflect rich, nonlinear integration of sensory inputs from the fingers. We suggest that this nonlinear finger integration allows for a highly flexible mapping from finger sensory inputs to motor responses that facilitates dexterous object manipulation.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.193
Threshold uncertainty score0.287

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.073
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.243 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations34
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeuroscienceSame topicEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesFrench-language works237,207